It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Can the United Nations (Security Council) sanction/impose sanctions on the United States?

page: 2
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 20 2019 @ 01:11 PM
link   
Considering the current state of world affairs, I would wear UN sanctions like a badge of honor.




posted on Jun, 20 2019 @ 01:58 PM
link   
a reply to: AnakinWayneII

The EU is so weak militarily that they can't even prosecute a war on their own soil for the requisite 30 days IAW the NATO charter. They also largely don't contribute the requisite 2% of GDP on domestic military spending.

The EU is a weak willed pansy collection of roll-over and take it pussies. They will do nothing.
edit on 20 6 19 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2019 @ 02:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: odzeandennz

Oddly enough, since WWII the US hasn't been at peace ever. It's crimes against humanity span from Vietnam to Iraq to Syria, Yemen, Djibouti, Haiti, Afghanistan, the gulf in general.. Abu grhaib, Panama... The list goes on.



Oddly enough most of those so called "crimes" either at the behest of or with UN approval.



posted on Jun, 20 2019 @ 02:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: AnakinWayneII
The same with the EU - can the EU also impose sanctions against the USA, either alongside the UNSC or independently?


I don't think the EU is emo enough to start self cutting with a chainsaw like that. I mean, really, if they did impose sanctions on the USA, I think the US' primary Euro trading partners EU member nations would immediately backlash against the EU.



posted on Jun, 20 2019 @ 02:31 PM
link   
a reply to: rickymouse




If we allowed Russia to Nuke the capitals of those countries and destroy their military they would not be putting sanctions on the US anymore


And you think the 600 or so nuclear warheads that The U.K. and France hold, wouldn't be sent in the direction of Russia?



posted on Jun, 20 2019 @ 02:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: rickymouse




If we allowed Russia to Nuke the capitals of those countries and destroy their military they would not be putting sanctions on the US anymore


And you think the 600 or so nuclear warheads that The U.K. and France hold, wouldn't be sent in the direction of Russia?

MAD



posted on Jun, 20 2019 @ 02:48 PM
link   
a reply to: AnakinWayneII

They could, but what would happen to their economies if they could not trade with the US? What would happen to the UN if the US stopped funding it?



posted on Jun, 20 2019 @ 04:16 PM
link   
Sanctioning the world's largest exporter of food ...

I dont think the rest of the world is holding the right cards for that play



posted on Jun, 20 2019 @ 04:26 PM
link   
Considering the number of different views on the world I don’t think anyone is in the position to decide what a war crime is and there certainly isn’t any binding opinion on the matter. Basically the entire ides of a “war crime” is BS in my opinion as the object of war is to win and not to gain style points.



posted on Jun, 20 2019 @ 04:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: markovian
Sanctioning the world's largest exporter of food ...

I dont think the rest of the world is holding the right cards for that play


Germany, The U.K.. France, Holland, Italy and Belgium ( all E.U. Countries ) export double the amount of food of The U.S

www.worldatlas.com...



posted on Jun, 20 2019 @ 05:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: AnakinWayneII

The EU is so weak militarily that they can't even prosecute a war on their own soil for the requisite 30 days IAW the NATO charter. They also largely don't contribute the requisite 2% of GDP on domestic military spending.

The EU is a weak willed pansy collection of roll-over and take it pussies. They will do nothing.


Remember the NATO no fly zone in Libya? Two weeks, and then they were out of ammo and asked the US to resupply them.



posted on Jun, 20 2019 @ 06:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: markovian
Sanctioning the world's largest exporter of food ...

I dont think the rest of the world is holding the right cards for that play


Germany, The U.K.. France, Holland, Italy and Belgium ( all E.U. Countries ) export double the amount of food of The U.S

www.worldatlas.com...


If that's the case it's only fair to add Mexico and Canada to the USA there is NAFTA after all

You miss the point completely who exactly is going to make up for that massive shortage and how fast



posted on Jun, 20 2019 @ 11:58 PM
link   
As of the time being, the UN simply does not exist without the US being involved. About 1/4 of the UN (assessed) budget is funded by the US.

www.cfr.org...

UNAIDS is funded 34% by the US
WFP is funded 41% by the US
DPKO is funded 25% by the US

I can go on...
The UN simply does not bite the hand that feeds it, and if the US didn't back the UN, it would dissolve really darn quickly.



posted on Jun, 21 2019 @ 09:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: odzeandennz

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: AnakinWayneII

That is a very good question, but sadly the US is above the law. It has rejected the International Criminal Court for very good reasons--many criminals hold high office and could be indicted for crimes against humanity.

It will be a cold day in hell before the UN, corrupt itself by many standards, holds the feet to the fire.


That's because America would have been tried for war crimes long ago.

Oddly enough, since WWII the US hasn't been at peace ever. It's crimes against humanity span from Vietnam to Iraq to Syria, Yemen, Djibouti, Haiti, Afghanistan, the gulf in general.. Abu grhaib, Panama... The list goes on.

One day it will stop.


Candidly speaking, we've been in perpetual war since 1775 (and later if you want to consider the colonial wars between Natives and the French).

Revolutionary War 1775-1783
Cherokee–American wars 1776-1795
Quasi-War 1798-1800
First Barbary War 1801-1805
War of 1812 1812-1815
Second Barbary War 1815
First Seminole War 1817-1818
Texas–Indian Wars 1820-1875
Second Seminole War 1835-1842
Mexican–American War 1846-1848
Cayuse War 1847-1855
Apache Wars 1851-1900
Third Seminole War 1855-1858
American Civil War 1861-1865

There are 43 other "interventions, conflicts, occupations or wars" that involve various native tribes and other combatants that are not listed.

But if we want to put the *BS* nation-building wars aside, here we have our geo-political wars. Again, American excellence goes way further back than world war 2:

Second Opium War 1856-1859
Spanish–American War 1898
Philippine–American War 1899-1902
Boxer Rebellion 1899-1901
Border War 1910-1919
Occupation of Nicaragua 1912-1933
Occupation of Haiti 1915-1934
Occupation of the Dominican Republic 1916-1924
World War I 1914-1918

and finally, world war 2.



posted on Jun, 21 2019 @ 09:09 PM
link   
WITH that being said, I don't think any other nation in the world can trace their roots back to a less bloody history. If we're talking about burning catholics and pagans at the stake or beheading, raping and pillaging your entire enemy after complete annihilation of their city, no one has clean hands.



posted on Jun, 22 2019 @ 10:51 AM
link   
even if the UN could it would lead to global chaos and economic collapse, and America would be just fine after a few years. might hurt America in the short term but America would be put in an even better position in the end, while the world takes another few decades to recover.

America was very smart, patient and methodical in positioning itself in such a way that hurting our economy will hurt the world, basically America took the global economy hostage and wont go down without dragging everyone down with it.

edit on 22-6-2019 by namehere because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2019 @ 08:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus

There was a period when humans claimed to be civilized, and at that time they wrote such laws to punish those who violated the consensus crimes against humanity. The current ones came from that time when the US stood for decency and humanity and are generally referred to as the Geneva Conventions.

Much of that evolved from our rather noble actions and efforts at Nuremberg after WWII. One of the more inspiring moments was when a US prosecutor there, one Hartley Shawcross, noted that "There comes a point when a man must refuse to answer to his leader if he is also to answer to his own conscience." Wise and truthful words from Shawcross.



posted on Jun, 24 2019 @ 07:39 AM
link   
a reply to: face23785

The US rejected ICC because so many of our guys are war criminals and they don't want to go to jail.

Military aggression is how we operate.

Any such international crimes from our perspective will be reserved for dark-skinned people who don't do what we say.



posted on Jun, 24 2019 @ 08:02 AM
link   
Well...there would be no way to enforce sanctions.

1. US military is the primary enforcement for the UN. Other nations could send troops, but what would be the life expectancy of a blue hat in a nation with over 300 million civilian owned guns?

2. The US is capable of going complete economic isolationist. We have all the resources we need to provide for our own. It wouldn’t be easy changing gears for complete domestic production, but we can do it.

3. Many countries depend on the US for financial aid and resources. How confident is the UN in gaining/retaining their support. China recycles many many many tons of US materials with plastic, cardboard and metal chief among them. There goes their industry or would they not side with the UN?




top topics



 
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join